And you say Bush is dumb.....

"salmobytes" wrote in message
. ..
notbob wrote:

"The only difference between the Democrats and the Repulicans is: The
Democrats will take you money and give it to those who have not earned
it.
The Repulicans will take your money and keep it for themselves." --nb

This is a false argument. Yes, democrats do care about social justice.

The putative philosophical underpinnings of the Democratic party are
commendable but they have little to do with the reality of party leadership
or power brokerage (which is to say, politics) on a national level.
Whatever may have been the case in bygone eras (and this is still a
contentious matter in history, subject to repeated revision), the fact is
that the sole objective of the major political parties in the U.S. (and
presumably elsewhere) and the major players within those parties is to win
elections and gain and/or retain and consolidate power. It is a perhaps
unfortunate fact that the voting public pretty much universally align
themselves with one or the other of the two major parties and will, for the
foreseeable future, continue to do so despite the fact that neither shows
much indication of living up to the ideals they espouse.

Despite the frothings of a certain damaged individual of our acquaintance,
the underlying cause of all this purblind idiocy is a nearly universal
refusal to adhere to anything resembling an ideology.

They'd like (among other things) to try to end poverty and ignorance
using education, and yes, even to spend a little money to alleviate
real misery. But the *amounts* of money spent on social welfare, over the
years, is a pittance.

During the cold war years the R's used to wine piteously about all the
money we were wasting on "foreign aid." But we hardly spent a nickel
on any real aid. We spent all the money on arms, propping up
anti-communist dictators all over the world. We're still paying a price
for that, in Afganistan, Guatemala and all over Africa.

The real spending, since the Viet Nam war, has always occurred during
R presidencies. But it all went to the military industrial corporations
and the oil companies (run by R's). They're the ones who increase
spending, usually accompanied by simultaneous tax cuts. They don't like
to pay the rent, it seems.

Yeah, all that is true.

Wolfgang

salmobytes wrote:

salmobytes wrote:

This is a false argument.


I'm going to give everybody a break and take a powder for another month
or two. I do like to talk about fishing, and there are places--out there
on the net--where that still seems to happen.

There are plenty of ROFFers here who still do that. But also way too
many (like me) who don't. I keep getting sucked into these hopeless
political quagmires. Bait fishing is a much more satisfying bad habit.

aw hell...i was just gettin to really like you too. g

of course, you're right. it's a murky pit around this place, with
little light or pleasant voices most days. still, some things need to
be said and argued...and it's always comforting to hear a new voice
speaking about the issues. enjoy your vacation from the quagmire, but
don't lose your passion or the reason to voice it...even here.

jeff

jeff miller wrote:
salmobytes wrote:
salmobytes wrote:

This is a false argument.

I'm going to give everybody a break and take a powder for another
month or two. I do like to talk about fishing, and there are
places--out there on the net--where that still seems to happen.

There are plenty of ROFFers here who still do that. But also way too
many (like me) who don't. I keep getting sucked into these hopeless
political quagmires. Bait fishing is a much more satisfying bad
habit.

aw hell...i was just gettin to really like you too. g

of course, you're right.

Well, not really, IMHO. How someone can write that much stuff, hit the
send button, and then say "Damn - they sucked me in AGAIN!" is puzzling to
me. At what stage of that process does one realize they're being sucked
in?Rather than periodically doing this and then staying away from this
place, wouldn't it just be easier not to reply, and easier still not to even
read the political stuff? It wouldn't be much fun, but easier nonetheless.
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

Tim J. wrote:

jeff miller wrote:

salmobytes wrote:

salmobytes wrote:


This is a false argument.

I'm going to give everybody a break and take a powder for another
month or two. I do like to talk about fishing, and there are
places--out there on the net--where that still seems to happen.

There are plenty of ROFFers here who still do that. But also way too
many (like me) who don't. I keep getting sucked into these hopeless
political quagmires. Bait fishing is a much more satisfying bad
habit.

aw hell...i was just gettin to really like you too. g

of course, you're right.


Well, not really, IMHO. How someone can write that much stuff, hit the
send button, and then say "Damn - they sucked me in AGAIN!" is puzzling to
me. At what stage of that process does one realize they're being sucked
in?Rather than periodically doing this and then staying away from this
place, wouldn't it just be easier not to reply, and easier still not to even
read the political stuff? It wouldn't be much fun, but easier nonetheless.

you don't think bait fishing is a more satisfying experience than
tilting with some of the human windmills here? you have been sick,
haven't you? g

as someone who has easily yielded time and again to my own human
weaknesses...one of which properly but sadly ended my first marriage to
an especially fine lady ...i fully understand and accept the power of
"getting sucked in" despite what might have been the better, wiser,
easier course.

with regard to the issue at hand...at some point you just have to say
what's on your mind. it ain't always about what's easier.

jeff

"jeff miller" wrote in message
. ..
Tim J. wrote:

jeff miller wrote:

salmobytes wrote:

salmobytes wrote:


This is a false argument.

I'm going to give everybody a break and take a powder for another
month or two. I do like to talk about fishing, and there are
places--out there on the net--where that still seems to happen.

There are plenty of ROFFers here who still do that. But also way too
many (like me) who don't. I keep getting sucked into these hopeless
political quagmires. Bait fishing is a much more satisfying bad
habit.

aw hell...i was just gettin to really like you too. g

of course, you're right.


Well, not really, IMHO. How someone can write that much stuff, hit the
send button, and then say "Damn - they sucked me in AGAIN!" is puzzling
to me. At what stage of that process does one realize they're being
sucked in?Rather than periodically doing this and then staying away from
this place, wouldn't it just be easier not to reply, and easier still not
to even read the political stuff? It wouldn't be much fun, but easier
nonetheless.

you don't think bait fishing is a more satisfying experience than tilting
with some of the human windmills here? you have been sick, haven't you?
g

as someone who has easily yielded time and again to my own human
weaknesses...one of which properly but sadly ended my first marriage to an
especially fine lady ...i fully understand and accept the power of
"getting sucked in" despite what might have been the better, wiser, easier
course.

with regard to the issue at hand...at some point you just have to say
what's on your mind. it ain't always about what's easier.

jeff
11:49 PM ? red or white
joe

jeff miller typed:
Tim J. wrote:

jeff miller wrote:

salmobytes wrote:

salmobytes wrote:


This is a false argument.

I'm going to give everybody a break and take a powder for another
month or two. I do like to talk about fishing, and there are
places--out there on the net--where that still seems to happen.

There are plenty of ROFFers here who still do that. But also way
too many (like me) who don't. I keep getting sucked into these
hopeless political quagmires. Bait fishing is a much more
satisfying bad habit.

aw hell...i was just gettin to really like you too. g

of course, you're right.


Well, not really, IMHO. How someone can write that much stuff, hit
the send button, and then say "Damn - they sucked me in AGAIN!" is
puzzling to me. At what stage of that process does one realize
they're being sucked in?Rather than periodically doing this and then
staying away from this place, wouldn't it just be easier not to
reply, and easier still not to even read the political stuff? It
wouldn't be much fun, but easier nonetheless.

you don't think bait fishing is a more satisfying experience than
tilting with some of the human windmills here? you have been sick,
haven't you? g

Still am, usually. ;-)

as someone who has easily yielded time and again to my own human
weaknesses...one of which properly but sadly ended my first marriage
to an especially fine lady ...i fully understand and accept the power
of "getting sucked in" despite what might have been the better, wiser,
easier course.

with regard to the issue at hand...at some point you just have to say
what's on your mind. it ain't always about what's easier.

I have no problem with that, but it just seems odd to flail at a keyboard
and then post a message of regret a few minutes later. Maybe not - hell, I
don't know. Let's wait a few minutes and see if I regret this one. . . .
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

"Tim J." wrote

I have no problem with that, but it just seems odd to flail at a keyboard
and then post a message of regret a few minutes later. Maybe not - hell, I
don't know. Let's wait a few minutes and see if I regret this one. . . .

hilarious. as they say down in rowan county (in an expression of
bemused endearment), "...timmaaay, you won't do, son; you just won't do..."

yfitons
wayno

On May 14, 4:27*am, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2008 20:20:48 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
Yeah you are right, he ONLY won a Silver Star and a Bronze Star. And
you, Ann Coulter and a whole gaggle of creeps like to pretend that his
wounds at Khe Sanh were not battlefield wounds so his lost limbs did
not qualify for the purple heart. Frankly a whole passel of decent
republicans distance themselves from these slanders. The **** heels
like to say stuff like his wounds were self inflicted because he
picked up the grenade and that it wasn't Khe Sanh. I wonder how kids
popped dismantling IEDs would be classified by you and Coulter?

Dave, I just said that the man suffered terrible wounds in Nam and
maybe he should have been awarded the PH. *But he *wasn't*, and for
him to say so and stand behind his words and blogs is what everyone
objected to. *Show me where I have agreed with anything Coulter has
said about Cleland? *It doesn't exist. *My one and only objection to
the man is his phony representation of the PH. *

OTT, how are you doing with your surgery? *Just had another friend,
68, go through the ordeal, but is now ok. *He had the same docs as I
used.

Dave

Any complete look at this issue understands that it is a red herring.
First, missing awards and being confused about awards is pretty common
for severely wounded, focused on regaining a sense of the world
outside the horror visited upon them. Cleland even said early in his
recovery and later that the real heroes were other guys and he didn't
deserve the medals. THAT is a very common response from combat
survivors who often remain focused on their dead and missing
comrades. My Uncle, a Silver Star winner, wouldn't talk about the war
until a couple of years ago. He would only make jokes when asked. He'd
say things like HE was safe because he slept under Patton's tank. Ive
read the citation and some of the combat reports of his Armored
Engineer unit and have some idea of the casualties the Germans
extracted from Patton's spearheads, and I know he was not safe. And as
a little kid I saw some of the human wreckage that were his surviving
buddies and I doubt they cared very much about an accurate inventory
of their awards.

I don't think a lot about surgery. Im relatively healthy, knock on
wood, cancer free, in decent cardio shape. Ive been very lucky so far.
I'm pretty physical and have adapted to the minor attendant
inconveniences better than most evidently. My wife is very athletic
(triathlons, kayaking in Mexico as we speak) so that is a positive
influence. My little orchard and some new farm land also keep me
going. I think the keys are pushing a big dose of daily exercise,
light drinking, vegetables and luck.

I'm 65 soon and would be interested in what you and any other oldsters
have to suggest/recommend as per Medigap insurance.

Dave

Hey guys I get enough fuc al;skdjf politics, from CNN, Fox, and the news
papers. I joined this board to relax and talk fishing.

I have nothing against mixing it up in politics but not here. Get a
life.


--
Big Bushkill
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Bushkill's Profile: http://www.njflyfishing.com/vBulleti...hp?userid=2693
View this thread: http://www.njflyfishing.com/vBulleti...ad.php?t=14733


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Fri, 16 May 2008 09:55:08 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On May 14, 4:27*am, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2008 20:20:48 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
Yeah you are right, he ONLY won a Silver Star and a Bronze Star. And
you, Ann Coulter and a whole gaggle of creeps like to pretend that his
wounds at Khe Sanh were not battlefield wounds so his lost limbs did
not qualify for the purple heart. Frankly a whole passel of decent
republicans distance themselves from these slanders. The **** heels
like to say stuff like his wounds were self inflicted because he
picked up the grenade and that it wasn't Khe Sanh. I wonder how kids
popped dismantling IEDs would be classified by you and Coulter?

Dave, I just said that the man suffered terrible wounds in Nam and
maybe he should have been awarded the PH. *But he *wasn't*, and for
him to say so and stand behind his words and blogs is what everyone
objected to. *Show me where I have agreed with anything Coulter has
said about Cleland? *It doesn't exist. *My one and only objection to
the man is his phony representation of the PH. *

OTT, how are you doing with your surgery? *Just had another friend,
68, go through the ordeal, but is now ok. *He had the same docs as I
used.

Dave

Any complete look at this issue understands that it is a red herring.
First, missing awards and being confused about awards is pretty common
for severely wounded, focused on regaining a sense of the world
outside the horror visited upon them. Cleland even said early in his
recovery and later that the real heroes were other guys and he didn't
deserve the medals. THAT is a very common response from combat
survivors who often remain focused on their dead and missing
comrades. My Uncle, a Silver Star winner, wouldn't talk about the war
until a couple of years ago. He would only make jokes when asked. He'd
say things like HE was safe because he slept under Patton's tank. Ive
read the citation and some of the combat reports of his Armored
Engineer unit and have some idea of the casualties the Germans
extracted from Patton's spearheads, and I know he was not safe. And as
a little kid I saw some of the human wreckage that were his surviving
buddies and I doubt they cared very much about an accurate inventory
of their awards.

Assuming Dave to be correct about the false PH claim, I'd offer two
things: If Cleland had said he didn't have a PH when he did have one,
the "I forgot" might carry more weight, and two, if he claimed it more
or less contemporaneously with the injury, it would be understandable
that he might assume he had received it. But for a public figure such
as Cleland to fall back on "oops, I forgot I didn't actually have one"
seems to strain credibility - YMMV.

What I don't understand is why people think he (and McCain, for having
been a POW) are "heroes" based solely upon things completely beyond
their control or necessarily correct in their opinions about war or that
to question them is somehow unpatriotic. Another thing I don't
understand is why anyone would question that Cleland is, by "normal"
definition, a "hero" based on his Silver and Bronze stars, which are,
AFAIK, legit and deserved.

HTH,
R